Following Church teaching on homosexuality leads to collateral sin?

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks very much Portrait.

However your answer does not ‘play the game’! Let me explain.

Your church claims that a sincere unbeliever can be convinced via their Natural Reason of the wrongness of faithful gay sex.

It is that claim that we are investigating.

Your answer says that by acknowledging my conscience I must also acknowledge God. Well actually that is a claim I would contest, but it is a red herring because, as stated, the Catholic Church says that I can be convinced without believing in God no matter how reasonable such a belief may or may not be.

Summary so far

YOU If something is unnatural it is wrong and this is evident even to the unbeliever.
ME But could you explain just why ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’?
YOU Conscience tells you so.
ME But my conscience tells me the opposite. How do you decide whose conscience is correct and whose incorrect?
YOU God ,the Church…
ME Hang on a minute - the Church claims to be able to show to an unbeliever that its moral claims are true, therefore your answer is not to the point.
YOU …?

Back to you then.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Continuing a little.

You seem to hint that it is impossible to give a criterion to decide whose moral intuition is correct because of orginal sin. As I understand it this is a Protestant viewpoint. The Catholic view is that although man is tainted with original sin, nevertheless he can still get an idea right and wrong via his Natural Reason. In Eden, Adam would no doubt have understood what Natural Reason says much more clearly that you & I do PLUS he would not feel the same temptation to sin that we do, HOWEVER we do have the ability, or so your church teaches via Natural Reason alone to find moral truths.

The quotes you gave me earlier indicate this:

"The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.

"The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building human community

There is nothing in these quotes restricting the Natural Law to pre-fall man.

Of course, if you convince me that faithful gay sex is wrong, then we would need an explanation why I went wrong and, perhaps, orginal sin would give us the answer. But it is necessary for you to do the convincing first.

You have a choice:

a] Either, show me how my Natural Reason shows that faithful gay sex is wrong
b] Or, agree that your Church is mistaken in its claim that the natural law is present in the heart of every man.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Don’t reply to this one; it is just for information.

You say:

he may be repressing or stifling the truth which he does know, deep within him, regarding the immorality of homosexuality, for all manner of personal reasons (e.g. fear of public disapproval or being branded ‘homophobic’, being declared persona non grata by relatives, friends or work colleagues or simply because such a ‘bigoted’ viewpoint does not sit comfortably with a man’s socially liberal world-view). All of these factors can exert an exceedingly powerful influence in a man’s life, perhaps much more than he would ever be prepared to admit.
Now this may be the case with some people but not for me. I am an old man and had these views before my daughter was born and when gay sex was illegal and unpopular.

As I say no need to reply. These psychological matters are in any case not relevant so let’s stick with the thorny problem of deciding between conflicting intuitions without bringing the Church or God to your aid.

Regards

Laurie

 

[erigby27]

Not sure if anyone else has said this but, SSA isn’t the same thing as homosexuality. Someone is homosexual if they engage in sex with members of the same sex. Homosexuality is an identity choice- it’s a social label. You don’t identify as homosexual if you reject that lifestyle. Though you purportedly reject the term, it seems that you identify as someone who suffers from same sex attraction, and chooses to live chastely. You’ve accepted that you’re homosexual, but you’re actually not. You’re celibate.

Therefore if someone asks you if you are homosexual, the answer is most definitely “no”.

When the Church says that it doesn’t not allow for homosexual men to be ordained, it is referring to men who embrace their homosexuality and identify as gay. The Church would certainly not reject someone who can demonstrate that he has lived chastely for a significant period of time and obviously has a handle on his temptations. As far as the Church is concerned, someone isn’t a homosexual unless they identify as homosexual. In fact, the Church would only have concerns about someone’s homosexuality if an applicant presented himself as “homosexual” which suggests that he doesn’t understand the Church’s position. You obviously do understand the Church’s position, but not the Church’s language.

I find that it is always helpful to use the Church’s language, because it is usually very carefully chosen and highly specific. In the eyes of the Church, you, my friend, are not a homosexual. You are a person who suffers from SSA. I know you don’t like the term, but it’s used for a reason. It much more specifically describes your situation, and frees you from your particular moral dilemma.

You’re not lying. You are living the truth and God bless you for it. You certainly shouldn’t have to be living in fear of losing things that you love when you already have quite the cross to bear.

Pax, friend.

P.S. Catholic Answers Live somewhat recently had a segment on the psychology of homosexuality with guest Dr. Joseph Nicolosi from NARTH. He was extremely informative and was very helpful in his definitions of SSA and homosexuality and the distinctions between those two things. If you have iTunes, go look up the Catholic Answers Live podcast and “psychology of homosexuality” and give the show a listen.

 

[Portrait]

Thanks very much Portrait.

However your answer does not ‘play the game’! Let me explain.

Your church claims that a sincere unbeliever can be convinced via their Natural Reason of the wrongness of faithful gay sex.

It is that claim that we are investigating.

Your answer says that by acknowledging my conscience I must also acknowledge God. Well actually that is a claim I would contest, but it is a red herring because, as stated, the Catholic Church says that I can be convinced without believing in God no matter how reasonable such a belief may or may not be.

Summary so far

YOU If something is unnatural it is wrong and this is evident even to the unbeliever.
ME But could you explain just why ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’?
YOU Conscience tells you so.
ME But my conscience tells me the opposite. How do you decide whose conscience is correct and whose incorrect?
YOU God ,the Church…
ME Hang on a minute - the Church claims to be able to show to an unbeliever that its moral claims are true, therefore your answer is not to the point.
YOU …?

Back to you then.

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your reply.

The Church’s veto on homosexual liasons is based on Genesis 1: 27-28: "God created man in his own image…male and female he created them…and God said, “Be fruitful and multiply” and Genesis 2: 24 “a man shall be joined to his wife (not a member of his own gender), and they shall become one flesh” (parenthesis mine). Our Lord Himself cites these very same qoutations in St. Mark’s Gospel when asked about marriage.

Now homosexual acts of depravity are not consonant with natural law because they obvously eliminate the possibility of the gift of life, thus frustrating the command of God to “Be fruitful and multiply”. Thus it is a sin against nature like auto-eroticism, beastality and non-pro-creative heterosexual coitus, inasmuch as any sexual act is necessarily closed to the gift of another human life. This, by any reasonable standard, is both unnantural and a departure from the norm.

Whilst it is true that pro-creation may not be the only goal of male and female coitus it is clearly a major and essential part of it, otherwise artificial means of birth prevention would be totally unecessary. It is the norm for offspring to result from male and female intercourse. Moreover, without heterosexual copulation as the ‘natural’ expression of human sexuality, the future of mankind would surely be in jeopardy.

Looked at from a purely biological standpoint, those of the same sex are clearly not made for initmate ‘face to face’ sexual intercourse, physically or genetically. Who would deny that the vagina is intended to accommodate the penis? Moreover, the vagina has natural lubrication and multiple layers of protective skin cells in a way in which the anus does not, hence the hazards of of infection and disease from anal sex are patently obvious and the fact that condoms must be used to reduce this risk only further highlights the unnaturalness and dangers involved in such deviancy. These biological considerations alone should flash up the warning cones with respect to homosexual aberrant activity. That they do not is clear and unmistakeable evidence of man’s fallen estate and his revolt against the moral law of God.

Homosexual liasons are unnatural and wrong because marriage is the permanent, faithful and God-willing fruitful union of a man and a woman who have entered into the covenant relationship of husband and wife. The Sacrament of Marriage is a sacred bond that emulates the love between Christ and His bride, the Church (see Ephesians 5: 32). Therefore any other union is by definition a sacrilegious parody as well as a hideous affront to this unique bond. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church quite rightly states that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and “…are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from genuine affective and sexual complementarity, Under no circumstances can they be approved” (para. 2357).

Laurie, you state that you would contest the claim that to acknowledge conscience is to tacitly acknowledge God. Would be most interested to hear how you would argue your case with respect to this.

That’s it for now, so its over to you old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Continuing a little.

You seem to hint that it is impossible to give a criterion to decide whose moral intuition is correct because of orginal sin. As I understand it this is a Protestant viewpoint. The Catholic view is that although man is tainted with original sin, nevertheless he can still get an idea right and wrong via his Natural Reason. In Eden, Adam would no doubt have understood what Natural Reason says much more clearly that you & I do PLUS he would not feel the same temptation to sin that we do, HOWEVER we do have the ability, or so your church teaches via Natural Reason alone to find moral truths.

The quotes you gave me earlier indicate this:

"The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.

"The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building human community

There is nothing in these quotes restricting the Natural Law to pre-fall man.

Of course, if you convince me that faithful gay sex is wrong, then we would need an explanation why I went wrong and, perhaps, orginal sin would give us the answer. But it is necessary for you to do the convincing first.

You have a choice:

a] Either, show me how my Natural Reason shows that faithful gay sex is wrong
b] Or, agree that your Church is mistaken in its claim that the natural law is present in the heart of every man.

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Can I kindly ask that you re-read my post (No. 120) again as I think you have missed the key point that I was making, namely that although man does have an intuitive ability to distinguish right from wrong, he can also have a radically defective conscience which can lead him to make erroneous moral judgments. Now as far as I am aware no orthodox Catholic or Protestant would have any qualms with this.

Now this being the case it is essential that man has an authoritative arbiter to guide him into making the correct moral choices. Moreover, the final court of appeal must always be the moral law of God as faithfully revealed in Sacred Scripture and unerringly interpreted by the magisterium of the Church. If we refuse to embrace this position then we are back to a chaotic quagmire of competing opinions where every man’s viewpoint is eqaully valid, for we are devoid of any authoritative criterion with which to assess various behaviours. Why should one man’s take on some moral issue be any more valid than some other man’s?, for both could adduce compelling reasons as to why they should be believed and not the other chap. It is at this point that people start raising their hands in despair and saying with Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?” and possibly wondering if there even is such a thing. No, without an authoritatative teaching Voice we will be tossed about on a doctrinal and moral sea of uncertainty that will cause us to drift ever further away from God’s norms and law.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Portrait,

We are talking at cross-purposes here.

You and I have conflicting intuitions and, of course, if you are correct then original sin or some such must explain my false intuitions.

But that is not where we are. I ask you for a way of showing whose intuition is the correct one. Now the Church’s teachings about God enables us, if we accept them ,certainly does enable us to decide. However to accept this you need to be a Catholic. As I am not we might just have to agree to disagree.

However your church says that everyone can be brought to see that the moral dictates of the Natural Law are correct - provided they are of good will and able to reason competently. The moral law is ‘written in our hearts’ whether we are believers or not AND by our Natural Reason we can see its deliverances.
Accordingly your Church thinks that there is a way without reference to God the Bible or the Church to show that my intuition is the faulty one.

Am I mistaken about this?
If I am not, would you be kind enough to do this please.

Best wishes

Laurie

PS I can only discuss one thing at a time but after we have finished this topic, I would be happy to discuss the notion of conscience.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

More to chew upon:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: [My underlining]

Founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason, the moral law is known to us in the measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding. The question arises: How far can man be ignorant of the natural law, which, as St. Paul says, is written in the human heart (Romans 2:14)? The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason. These principles are really reducible to the primary principle which is expressed by St. Thomas in the form: “Do good and avoid evil”. Wherever we find man we find him with a moral code, which is founded on the first principle that good is to be done and evil avoided. When we pass from the universal to more particular conclusions, the case is different. Some follow immediately from the primary, and are so self-evident that they are reached without any complex course of reasoning. Such are, for example: “Do not commit adultery”; “Honour your parents”. No person whose reason and moral nature is ever so little developed can remain in ignorance of such precepts except through his own fault. Another class of conclusions comprises those which are reached only by a more or less complex course of reasoning. These may remain unknown to, or be misinterpreted even by persons whose intellectual development is considerable. To reach these more remote precepts, many facts and minor conclusions must be correctly appreciated, and, in estimating their value, a person may easily err, and consequently, without moral fault, come to a false conclusion

Look at the underlined bits. They clearly imply that moral rules can be understood and acknowledged by everyone. Some need reasoning to discern but nevertheless we can understand the reasoning.

This reasoning is what I am asking you to produce re gay sex.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

HOWEVER

The same article goes on to say:

Theoretically speaking, man is capable of acquiring a full kowledge of the moral law, which is, as we have seen, nothing but the dictates of reason properly exercised. Actually, taking into consideration the power of passion, prejudice, and other influences which cloud the understanding or pervert the will, one can safely say that man, unaided by supernatural revelation, would not acquire a full and correct knowledge of the contents of the natural law (cf. Vatican Council, Sess. III, cap. ii). In proof we need but recall that the noblest ethical teaching of pagans, such as the systems of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, was disfigured by its approbation of shockingly immoral actions and practices.

So your church says that IN THEORY an unbeliever can obtain FULL knowledge of the moral law but in practise this does not happen.

However I am not asking for FULL knowledge of everything it says I am asking for knowledge of one aspect only 'unaided by supernatural revelation.

It seems to me there are two alternatives for your reply.
EITHER, You could say that there is no way that you can convince a person of the evilness of faithful gay sex outside of supernatural revelation…
OR, You could say that that an honest non-believer can be brought to see its wrongness outside of supernatural revelation - in which case - PLEASE DO SO.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

ONE MORE TIME

In another place we read:

Further, the doctrine of original sin supplies an additional reason for such a revelation of the natural law. That doctrine teaches us that man by the abuse of his free will has rendered his attainment of salvation difficult. Though his intellectual faculties are not radically vitiated, yet his grasp of truth is weakened; his recognition of the moral law is constantly clouded by doubts and questionings. Revelation gives to his mind the certainty he had lost, and so far repairs the evils consequent on the catastrophe which had befallen him.

So here we are being told that unbelievers can find out about the natural law but it is difficult, but believers can find it out more easily via Revelation.

The latter ‘easy’ course is not open to me and I am asking you to guide me down the ‘difficult’ route.

Laurie

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…According to the Church, I cannot live openly as a homosexual, but this leads to a lot of venial sins I must commit in order to hide my true nature, specifically lying.

Are the lies I have to tell in order to keep my nature hidden sinful?

I have no obligation to tell anybody what my sexual desires are. So, by not sharing them with others or acting them out, is that “lying?” No.

My sexual cravings are not my identity. Any disordered desires I might have is evidence that I am a fallen soul in need of grace, in need of redemption. My calling is to live as Christ intends for me. That is, with the help of grace, to live with a pure mind and chaste body.

I disagree that you have to “lie” daily simply because you have same-sex attraction. There is no obligation to share any disordered desires to those who have not right to know them. I recommend you share with your confessor alone, so that he can give you spiritual direction. I also recommend the following support group:

Courage couragerc.net/

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… to hide my true nature"

Also, I disagree that “homosexuality” is anybody’s “true nature.” It is a disorder. It’s like saying alcoholism is my “true nature.” It’s a terribly flawed understanding. Your nature is that of a human, made in the image and likeness of God. Whatever disorders we may have, whether by birth or aquired by our disordered cultural influences, we must never forget that these disorders do not define our identities, nor does it diminish the fact that we are human, made in God’ image.

Furthermore, there have been studies that indicate that psychotherapy can benefit those with same-sex attraction. See here: narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

 

[agapewolf]

Also, I disagree that “homosexuality” is anybody’s “true nature.” It is a disorder. It’s like saying alcoholism is my “true nature.” It’s a terribly flawed understanding. Your nature is that of a human, made in the image and likeness of God. Whatever disorders we may have, whether by birth or aquired by our disordered cultural influences, we must never forget that these disorders do not define our identities, nor does it diminish the fact that we are human, made in God’ image.

Furthermore, there have been studies that indicate that psychotherapy can benefit those with same-sex attraction. See here: narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

absolutely!!!

again, I suggest tobhealing.com

 

[erigby27]

Also, I disagree that “homosexuality” is anybody’s “true nature.” It is a disorder. It’s like saying alcoholism is my “true nature.” It’s a terribly flawed understanding. Your nature is that of a human, made in the image and likeness of God. Whatever disorders we may have, whether by birth or aquired by our disordered cultural influences, we must never forget that these disorders do not define our identities, nor does it diminish the fact that we are human, made in God’ image.

Furthermore, there have been studies that indicate that psychotherapy can benefit those with same-sex attraction. See here: narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

:clapping:

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Have read your recent posts above and will respond to them on Monday afternoon. Thankyou for your patience old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and trust that you had a pleasant weekend.

Thankyou for your replies and for the helpful quotes from the Catholic Encylopedia, I say helpful because they do, in point of fact, rather substantiate what I have been continually endeavouring convey to you, vis-a-vis, that the reason why, without supernatural Revelation, only few men correctly comprehend the natural moral law lies in the “wound of ignorance” occasioned by the Fall. To put it quite simply there has been a radical weakening of man’s power of cognition that sadly prevents him knowing easily, with absolute certainty and without the admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order.

The light of natural human reason can only take one so far and will always prove inadequate and insufficient because, “**the power of ****passion, prejudice and other influences…cloud the understanding and pervert **the will”. Thus one can safely affirm “…that man unaided by supernatural revelation, would not aquire **a full and correct knowledge **of the contents of the natural law…In proof we need but recall that the noblest ethical teaching of pagans…was disfigured by its approbation of shockingly immoral actions and practices” (Catholic Encyclopedia, emphasis mine). This actually explains why some people, including yourself Laurie , do not consider homosexuality immoral and a hideous vice that is abhorrent to a holy God. As regards this particular issue the Fall has evidently impaired your, and others, power of cognition so that you approve of this “shockingly immoral” conduct. In view of this it is hardly surprising that your “grasp of truth is weakened” and your “recognition of the moral law is constantly clouded by doubts and questionings” (Catholic Encyclopedia, emphasis mine)

This is no aspersion on your intectual development, which is probably quite considerable, it is merely stating that the “wound of ignorance” caused by the Fall has weakened your power of cognition so that you are unable to perceive the issue of homosexuality aright.

It is perfectly true that the natural, let us call it for want of a better word “knowability”, of the moral law is attested by St. Paul in Romans 2: 14 and the highly developed culture of many pagans gives witness of the capacity of natural human reason. Thus I would in no wise deny that the consciences of non-Christians bear witness to God’s moral standards, but owing to the Fall this evidence of God’s law on their heart’s is not infrequently distorted and supressed, as the quotes from the Encyclopedia make abundantly clear. In the words of St. Paul sometimes men’s thoughts will “accuse” them and sometimes they will “excuse” them, depending on to what extent their conscience is radically defective.

My efforts to persaude you (see post 125) that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, on the basis of naural law reasoning, have thus far proved fruitless, which really proves the point made above that natural reasoning, unaided by divine Revelation, can only take one so far, alas “other influences cloud the understanding and pervert the will” (Catholic Encylopedia).

Laurie, you mentioned earlier in our discussion that you have always believed that homosexuality was not immoral long before your daughter was born and before it was decriminalised here in England. Since I do not have access to workings of your mind or the springs of your personality, it is rather difficult for me to make a stab at the reason (or reasons) why you belive thus. However, as we have already stated, it is possible for men to supress the truth in various areas of morality, depending on cultural influences and personal circumstances. This may occur quite unconsciously and a man may not be necessarily aware of any deliberate decision to embrace a certain viewpoint, it is just what he has always believed. However, I suspect that your daughter’s homosexuality has influenced you a great deal more than you probably realize or are, perhaps, prepared to acknowledge. Indeed, you have often said that you cannot deny the love that you have observed for some tweenty years now in your daughter’s liason. Thus this has surely coloured your thinking and “clouded your understanding” as to the morality/unnaturalness of homosexual behaviour, how could it really not have done?. Moreover, one must ask whether you would even wish to be convinced as regards the immorality of homosexuality, given the love quality of your daughter’s liason and the inevitalble family discord that might ensue were you to have a change of heart on the matter. Most Catholics, myself included, can appreciate your position and can see that a conversion to a different viewpoint would be attended with much difficulty and emotional pain. So one could say that you have very good reasons for not wanting to be persuaded and that is perfectly understandable.

Let me say in conclusion that human reason alone is powerless to discover the laws which God has devised for man’s guidance. He has an urgent need to be taught of God. Jesus Christ, who taught the way of God in truth (see St. Matt. 22: 16), has brought to our knowledge the necessity of Baptism and of faith and all the other lovely precepts of the Gospel, and the Catholic Church continues to reach in his name. Please study the claims of the Church from reliable sources, in their entirety, and you will see just how reasonable is the Church’s teaching on faith and morals.

Please give your careful deliberation to what I have said old chap, be assured of my prayers for you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thank you Portrait.
Your reply clarifies matters - but let us look a little deeper.

In theory Natural Reason should enable a non-believer to obtain moral truth.
In practise however original sin might mean even a sincere non-believer may fail and certainly could not be expected to get everything right.
[Hope that summarises your Church’s view correctly]

It follows that on a particular issue a non-believer might be brought to see the truth by use of Natural Reason . But not on everything.

On the issue of gay sex you reasoned, ‘It is unnatural’ hence ‘It is wrong’
I asked you the justification for reasoning ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’. Is there not some reasoning required to explain why the fact that something is unnatural means that it must also be wrong? If so could you produce it?

After all, as I have said, in some sense, being faithful is unnatural. However it is right because other considerations imply that a good person is so. Therefore it is not enough for something to be unnatural for it to be wrong. We need a ‘bridge’ between the two.
Of course I am not saying that being faithful is unnatural in the same way as gay sex is. What I am illustrating is that the fact that an act is unnatural does not of itself alone make it wrong.

Now,if your church is correct, ought you not to be able to give me some reasoning which could convince a non-believer? It may be I will reject it and you may want to say that original sin is the cause, but so far you have given me nothing to make the leap from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’.

All you have done is say that your conscience tells you that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’. But surely your conscience has a reason for telling you this - and this is what I am asking you for.

Post 125 refers to Genesis and so does not quite fit the bill. Some of it is religion-free.
Perhaps then you might use 125 to give me non-religious reasons why unnatural => wrong and perhaps my Natural Reason will see their cogency. Who knows? But no chance until you do!

Many thanks

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Thank you Portrait.
Your reply clarifies matters - but let us look a little deeper.

In theory Natural Reason should enable a non-believer to obtain moral truth.
In practise however original sin might mean even a sincere non-believer may fail and certainly could not be expected to get everything right.
[Hope that summarises your Church’s view correctly]

It follows that on a particular issue a non-believer might be brought to see the truth by use of Natural Reason . But not on everything.

On the issue of gay sex you reasoned, ‘It is unnatural’ hence ‘It is wrong’
I asked you the justification for reasoning ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’. Is there not some reasoning required to explain why the fact that something is unnatural means that it must also be wrong? If so could you produce it?

After all, as I have said, in some sense, being faithful is unnatural. However it is right because other considerations imply that a good person is so. Therefore it is not enough for something to be unnatural for it to be wrong. We need a ‘bridge’ between the two.
Of course I am not saying that being faithful is unnatural in the same way as gay sex is. What I am illustrating is that the fact that an act is unnatural does not of itself alone make it wrong.

Now,if your church is correct, ought you not to be able to give me some reasoning which could convince a non-believer? It may be I will reject it and you may want to say that original sin is the cause, but so far you have given me nothing to make the leap from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’.

All you have done is say that your conscience tells you that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’. But surely your conscience has a reason for telling you this - and this is what I am asking you for.

Post 125 refers to Genesis and so does not quite fit the bill. Some of it is religion-free.
Perhaps then you might use 125 to give me non-religious reasons why unnatural => wrong and perhaps my Natural Reason will see their cogency. Who knows? But no chance until you do!

Many thanks

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Greetings dear friend, so very glad that my last post helped to clarify matters. Now I will endeavour to address the issues you raise above and enlarge upon the “non-religious reasons” of post 125.

We have, with a little help from the Catholic Encyclopedia, established that there is a natural law which was binding upon pagans who had not even heard of the Mosaic Law (cf. Romans 2: 14), and to which all men are subject notwithstanding that they recognize neither divine Revelation nor the authority of the Church. Now to analyse and explain the natural moral law belongs properly to the science of ethics, and in this thread I cannot do more than indicate the broad lines of the process. Natural law has enabled the Church to address socio-economic, legal, political and, of course, moral issues on a philosophical foundation common to all men.

However, it is the moral with which we are now concerned. Let us take a few examples. It is morally wrong to satisfy the desire for food and drink in such a way which causes grave harm to the body or which obscures the use of reason. Certain faculties, such as the power of procreation, having a natural purpose and natural organs for that purpose, it would be morally wrong to frustrate this purpose by introducing an artificial barrier (contraception). Man is a social being and needs the society of other men; anything which would make the maintenance of human society impossible (e.g. theft or anarchy) are hence morally wrong. As regards homosexuality, which is the focus of our attention, one needs to consider the nature of the reproductive organs. Now it is clear in nature that some things plainly have inherent functions (called by philosophers teleologies). Thus in human bodies the purpose of the heart is to pump blood. of the teeth to tear and grind substances (usually food). Reproductive organs also have teleologies which can easily be discerned. clearly, the physical design of each organ, as well as the process of human reproduction, is adapted for this function. To violate this arrangement, as homosexuality manifestly does, is to engage in an unnatural act - thereby offending God, the author of the natural law. This is why it is both unnatural and wrong.

By the way, the substance of the Ten Commandments, save for the third commandment (keeping the Sabbath Day holy), is nothing more than a written expression of natural law. thus if I tell a man to live according to his nature, to develop his faculties harmoniously in accordance with their natural objects, and to live in a manner that befits the dignity of a human being, then I am merely telling him to obey the natural law which is a reflection in his nature of God’s eternal law. Moreover, in telling a man to do good and avoid evil, I am telling him not to break the commandments of God. Therefore the two sets of ideas are mutually inclusive.

Laurie, I hope you can see the cogency of all this natural law reasoning - the moral order divinely implanted in mankind and accessible to all men through human reason.

That all for now old chap as I’m going to take a breather until tommorow.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Portrait,

Thanks for your interesting reply

You say: Certain faculties, such as the power of procreation, having a natural purpose and natural organs for that purpose, it would be morally wrong to frustrate this purpose by introducing an artificial barrier (contraception)

You say this as though it were obvious but it is not! Yes contraception ‘frustrates the natural purpose of sex’ but why does that makes it wrong? This is the gap that needs to be bridged by you.

You say: Reproductive organs also have teleologies which can easily be discerned. clearly, the physical design of each organ, as well as the process of human reproduction, is adapted for this function.

Very true but what is wrong with using them for some other purpose? To say ‘unnatural’ is just to give this behaviour a label – what I want to know is ’why is it wrong?’. Most people happily agree that contraception frustrates one purpose of sex but think that is fine if by so doing they can limit their family size. Please I do not want to debate this one – I give the example to show that you need to explain why because something is unnatural, as defined by you, it is therefore wrong. [Have I mentioned that before?]

Suppose someone says that anything that is unnatural is wrong. Well he can easily be refuted by pointing out that the nose is not intended to hold spectacles but this is clearly not a wrong thing to use the nose for.

The reply is that although this is unnatural, as it does not stop the function of the nose, namely breathing, it is therefore not wrong. Only if we do something with the nose that would harm this function would it be wrong. So the term unnatural is being use to mean, ‘using something that has a particular function in such a way as to frustrate that purpose’.

OK so suppose I wear a cloak with a hood which therefore restricts my sight. By this argument I am doing something unnatural and so wrong. Hoodies and Benedictine Monks watch out! My legs have evolved to run fast from danger. If I have a sedentary job, I am using them in such a way as to frustrate this function. Hair on the head is there to prevent loss of heat from the head, so if I have a No 0 haircut I am frustrating its function and so am in the wrong.

To conclude: you still need to tell me know how I go from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’. You seem to think this move is obvious but it is not. This is a major problem with your ethical view and it seems very hard to get you to see it let alone give an answer. But hope is a virtue they say!

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

As regards contraception it is wrong because it fails to comply with the natural law of whom God is the author. By frustrating the natural purpose of carnal copulation it disregards the duty of procreation as the essential aspect of marriage, thereby offending God. It is this violation of the natural law and the resulting offence to the Creator which actually makes birth-prevention wrong.

The same argument would apply in the case of homosexuality becuase the reproductive organs would be used for an unnatural (i.e. contrary to nature) purpose for which they were not intended by the Creator. This abuse of the design and purpose of the natural law is wrong because again it is offensive and abhorrent to the Creator of this natural law.

Thus in both instances the hiatius between unnatural and wrong has been satisfactorily closed, unless of course one is an atheist and does not believe that God is the author of the natural moral law. If that is the case, then you would need to account as to why it is that natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. Moreover, you would also have to explain why man is possessed with a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural (e.g. beastality). It will not suffice to say by way of reply that beastality is unnatural because humans do not form loving relationships with animals. That is a perfectly valid but wholly inadequate reason; surely the primary reason is that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

To use such examples as glasses on noses, cloaks, hoods and hair, is to resort to utterly inadequate illustrations in support of a very feeble argument. Whilst I appreciate the points you are making, these examples are hardly analgous with the weighty issues currently under review because they are decidedly not infractions of the natural moral law, whereas contraception and homosexuality clearly are. That I wear glasses on the bridge of my nose or have a grade 0 haircut which causes heat loss, can hardly be deemed a violation of the natural moral law likely evoke the displeasure of the Creator. These obviously do differ greatly in nature to homosexual deviant acts and beastality, indeed they are poles apart and bear no comparison.

Laurie, does not our discussion continually evince the insufficiency and deficiency of natural law reasoning per se? Look old chap, man is a spiritual being not merely a collection of atoms and human reason alone is powerless to discover the laws which God has devised for his guidance.

Even with regards to the natural obligations of the moral law it is necessary for the vast majority of men to be taught of God; for human reason left to itself will discover the truth, at least in the less obvious precepts of the natural law, only with such dilligence and difficulty that very few men would actually come to a knowledge of it, especially when one bears in mind radically defective consciences. Therefore, the Catholic is taught by the Church his natural duties and in weighty and controversial matters (e.g. homosexuality and abortion) the teaching of the magisterium defines the moral obligations of the faithful. That teaching imposed on the the whole Church is infallibly true and error-free, for it bears that stamp of divine authority. Again I must urge you dear friend to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church, for you surely owe this to yourself.

Not sure when I will be able to respond to any further posts, but I will reply as soon as I have opportunity. So stand by for my posting.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait